固体废物管理政策的定量评估:政策建模一致性指数模型在巴基斯坦的应用

IF 2.7 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Jing Ma, Tajdar Khan, Haimei Li, Zhaoyun Yin, Khush Dil Khan
{"title":"固体废物管理政策的定量评估:政策建模一致性指数模型在巴基斯坦的应用","authors":"Jing Ma,&nbsp;Tajdar Khan,&nbsp;Haimei Li,&nbsp;Zhaoyun Yin,&nbsp;Khush Dil Khan","doi":"10.1007/s10163-024-02139-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The government of Pakistan has implemented policies to tackle solid waste problems; however, their results have been disappointing. This study used the Policy Modeling Consistency Index to assess 12 policies issued between 2005 and 2022 to find their strengths and weaknesses from multiple perspectives. Study results indicate that one policy (PL1) meets the criteria for a perfect level of consistency; its PMC-Index score is 9.08, which falls between 9 and 10. Six policies (PL4, PL9, PL12, PL5, PL11, and PL8) show a good level of consistency, with scores of 8.03, 7.84, 7.84, 7.67, 7.42, and 7.21, respectively, falling between 7 and 8.99. Five policies (PL10, PL6, PL3, PL7, and PL2) have acceptable consistency, scoring 6.47, 6.11, 5.97, 5.50, and 5.30, respectively, falling between 5 and 6.99. However, no policy scored 0–4.99, showing low consistency. The study provides an optimization path for low-ranked policies to improve (1) multi-departmental coordination to release policies together and share expertise, knowledge, and resources; (2) policy expansion to cover rural, urban, and industrial zones; (3) enhance timeliness to ensure prompt and regular policy reviews and updates; (4) enrich policy functions; and (5) execute economic incentives and penalties, among others. These specified insights can aid decision-makers in optimizing these policies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":643,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management","volume":"27 2","pages":"865 - 879"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative evaluation of solid waste management policies: the application of the policy modeling consistency index model in Pakistan\",\"authors\":\"Jing Ma,&nbsp;Tajdar Khan,&nbsp;Haimei Li,&nbsp;Zhaoyun Yin,&nbsp;Khush Dil Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10163-024-02139-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The government of Pakistan has implemented policies to tackle solid waste problems; however, their results have been disappointing. This study used the Policy Modeling Consistency Index to assess 12 policies issued between 2005 and 2022 to find their strengths and weaknesses from multiple perspectives. Study results indicate that one policy (PL1) meets the criteria for a perfect level of consistency; its PMC-Index score is 9.08, which falls between 9 and 10. Six policies (PL4, PL9, PL12, PL5, PL11, and PL8) show a good level of consistency, with scores of 8.03, 7.84, 7.84, 7.67, 7.42, and 7.21, respectively, falling between 7 and 8.99. Five policies (PL10, PL6, PL3, PL7, and PL2) have acceptable consistency, scoring 6.47, 6.11, 5.97, 5.50, and 5.30, respectively, falling between 5 and 6.99. However, no policy scored 0–4.99, showing low consistency. The study provides an optimization path for low-ranked policies to improve (1) multi-departmental coordination to release policies together and share expertise, knowledge, and resources; (2) policy expansion to cover rural, urban, and industrial zones; (3) enhance timeliness to ensure prompt and regular policy reviews and updates; (4) enrich policy functions; and (5) execute economic incentives and penalties, among others. These specified insights can aid decision-makers in optimizing these policies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management\",\"volume\":\"27 2\",\"pages\":\"865 - 879\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10163-024-02139-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10163-024-02139-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

巴基斯坦政府已经实施了解决固体废物问题的政策;然而,他们的结果却令人失望。本研究采用政策建模一致性指数对2005年至2022年期间颁布的12项政策进行评估,从多个角度发现其优缺点。研究结果表明,一项政策(PL1)达到了完美的一致性标准;其pmc指数得分为9.08,介于9到10之间。6项政策(PL4、PL9、PL12、PL5、PL11、PL8)表现出较好的一致性,得分分别为8.03、7.84、7.84、7.67、7.42、7.21,在7 ~ 8.99之间。5个策略(PL10、PL6、PL3、PL7、PL2)一致性较好,得分分别为6.47、6.11、5.97、5.50、5.30,评分范围在5 ~ 6.99之间。但是,没有政策得分为0-4.99,一致性较低。本研究为低阶政策提供了优化路径,以提高:(1)多部门协调,共同发布政策,共享经验、知识和资源;(2)政策向农村、城市和工业区扩展;(3)提高时效性,确保及时和定期检讨和更新政策;(4)丰富政策功能;(5)实施经济奖惩等措施。这些特定的见解可以帮助决策者优化这些策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Quantitative evaluation of solid waste management policies: the application of the policy modeling consistency index model in Pakistan

Quantitative evaluation of solid waste management policies: the application of the policy modeling consistency index model in Pakistan

The government of Pakistan has implemented policies to tackle solid waste problems; however, their results have been disappointing. This study used the Policy Modeling Consistency Index to assess 12 policies issued between 2005 and 2022 to find their strengths and weaknesses from multiple perspectives. Study results indicate that one policy (PL1) meets the criteria for a perfect level of consistency; its PMC-Index score is 9.08, which falls between 9 and 10. Six policies (PL4, PL9, PL12, PL5, PL11, and PL8) show a good level of consistency, with scores of 8.03, 7.84, 7.84, 7.67, 7.42, and 7.21, respectively, falling between 7 and 8.99. Five policies (PL10, PL6, PL3, PL7, and PL2) have acceptable consistency, scoring 6.47, 6.11, 5.97, 5.50, and 5.30, respectively, falling between 5 and 6.99. However, no policy scored 0–4.99, showing low consistency. The study provides an optimization path for low-ranked policies to improve (1) multi-departmental coordination to release policies together and share expertise, knowledge, and resources; (2) policy expansion to cover rural, urban, and industrial zones; (3) enhance timeliness to ensure prompt and regular policy reviews and updates; (4) enrich policy functions; and (5) execute economic incentives and penalties, among others. These specified insights can aid decision-makers in optimizing these policies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
16.10%
发文量
205
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management has a twofold focus: research in technical, political, and environmental problems of material cycles and waste management; and information that contributes to the development of an interdisciplinary science of material cycles and waste management. Its aim is to develop solutions and prescriptions for material cycles. The journal publishes original articles, reviews, and invited papers from a wide range of disciplines related to material cycles and waste management. The journal is published in cooperation with the Japan Society of Material Cycles and Waste Management (JSMCWM) and the Korea Society of Waste Management (KSWM).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信